The WalkAway Campaign... will it reform the Democratic Party or....???

Yes, the impeachment of Nixon was a game changer, he resigned in August, the election was in November which the Democrats killed the Republicans. But two years later Carter barely beat Ford by 2 points. Then Reagan swamped Carter four years later while the Republicans won back the senate for the first time since 1954.


Ross wasn’t really a game changer. But I agree both parties should have listened to him about NAFTA and the National Debt. 9-11 election wise come 2002 didn’t really change the landscape voting wise. The GOP picked up 8 house seats and one senator. 2004, Bush edged out Kerry.


The economy to me is like the weather. We can’t control it. Sure presidents take the credit for when we have a good economy and they get blamed for a bad economy. Perhaps Obama’s election did ramp up those who are white nationalist. But he received the highest percentage of the white vote since Carter.

As for gerrymandering after 2010 both sides did that to the ultimate extent they could. True, the Republicans controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats, so they abused their power more than the Democrats. If the situation had been reversed, the Democrats would have done the same thing.


Hillary did it to herself, being lazy and running one of the most inept campaigns since G.H.W. Bush back in 1992. If you call jury rigging by the DNC and Democratic state party leaders the primaries in Hillary’s favor, perhaps you’re right. Why did Hillary lose Wisconsin and Michigan? Look at her campaign visits to those states vs. Trump. Wisconsin 5 visits for Trump, none for Hillary. Michigan, six for Trump, one for Hillary. Pennsylvania was much closer, 8 for Trump vs. 5 for Hillary. Nationwide, campaign visits/stops/rallies/appearances, 116 for Trump between 1 Sep through 8 Nov to 71 for Hillary. That 71 looks larger than it actually was due to campaign fund raising in deep blue New York and California. Even in electoral vote rich Florida, Hillary ceded it to Trump 13 visits to 8 for Hillary. Why was she so lazy on the campaign trail?


Money wise was all Hillary, 1.171 billion to Trump’s 646.8 million.


https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/


2016 marked the first time since 1964 that the presidential candidate with the most money lost.


Now that is history, I’ve always said 2020 boils down to who the Democrats nominate. That Trump can’t win it, but the Democrats could lose it again as they did in 2016.

If you look at the generic presidential vote, women overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate over Trump 45-32. But independents still favor Trump over the Generic Democratic candidate 30-24 with 19% answering it depends. Those 19% I take it to mean their vote depends on who is the Democratic nominee. Question 52\


https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kvoamfqbbo/econTabReport.pdf



I’ll add just this, history shows that 90% on average who affiliate or identify with both major parties vote for their party’s candidate regardless of who it is. Now the independent leans vote for the candidate of the party they lean toward approximately on average 70% of the time. True or pure independents with no leans, who the heck knows or can figure them out.


With the right candidate, one who is attractive to independents the Democrats will win in a landslide and win back the senate. With a candidate that isn’t attractive to independents, ala Hillary Clinton, a repeat of 2016 is possible, but I’d say highly unlikely. Independents put Trump into the white house. Independents went 48-41 for Trump in Pennsylvania, 52-35 for Trump in Michigan and 50-40 Trump in Wisconsin. I see no way Trump can repeat on those numbers. A fluke, an anomaly.

 

In the immortal words of President George W. Bush do not mis-underestimate President Trump......
he could go at the abortion issue from a totally different angle and even coopt some of the
Andrew Yang platform........

That could be the best thing to do in a situation with the world Derivatives Market over seven hundred and ten trillion in 2014..... and the USA Derivatives market at 210 Trillion in 2014......

the USA needs some optimism.... and I do know that what i am proposing here would
work in Canada and I suspect something similar would also work in the USA....


Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

Will a Minimum Basic Income dramatically reduce the incidence of abortions?

1. 
   Perhaps by 1- 10 percent over the present rate.
   2 vote(s)
   40.0%
2. 
   Perhaps by 11 to twenty percent over the present rate.
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
3. 
   Perhaps twenty one to thirty percent over the present rate.
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
4. *
   Perhaps by even more than by thirty percent?
   3 vote(s)
   60.0%

Change Your Vote



I am advocating the usage of the Bank of Canada that is owned by all Canadians to finance giving five hundred dollars per month to all thirty seven million Canadians.

It will of course mean much more to poorer Canadians than to millionaires........
but it could be surprising how many stay at home wives with cheap and stingy millionaire husbands who control the purse strings of the home may find this extra five hundred very helpful indeed.

I suspect that well over eighty percent of of Canadians will spend this money reasonably well and:
1. enrol their kids in more after school programs.....
2. begin to purchase a higher percentage of organic produce vs the cheap GMO stuff
3. purchase a newer car, SUV or half ton truck
4. do renovations to their homes
5. hire landscapers to do certain projects on their properties
6. pay down their debt loads, especially the higher interest ones
7. buy a new home rather than renting
8. buy a cottage outside the city so that they can get away for weekends
9. many will choose to move to rural Canada in order to escape relatively hectic city life
10. eat at nice restaurants more often

11. I also believe that a significant percentage of Canadian women who would have chosen to have an abortion under the present economic situation will CHOOSE to keep their babies as opposed to having an abortion!

I suspect that less than ten percent of Canadians will attempt to live off this five hundred dollars / month and simply use it to drink or smoke more.
To whatever degree this happens the worst cases where these Canadians put themselves and others in danger this can be dealt with by issuing food stamps vs a monthly check.

I have listened to an audio video over and over again that explains what President Obama did from 2009 - 2014 and I came up with this idea because it is close to being the OPPOSITE to what President Obama did. He gave billions to the top one percent of the top one percent of the INVESTOR CLASS of Americans........ .and if he was expecting a trickle down effect to create jobs..... that certainly DID NOT happen!

Technically I am also advocating a variation of Quantitative Easing but......
my plan of sending it to ALL CANADIAN CITIZENS vs sending it pretty much all to INVESTORS.... makes my plan uniquely different.

Also..... I do have to admit that if Canada's government decided to do one year at two hundred and fifty per month per citizen or legal resident...... this might be a good way to test my program to see how it work and give companies an opportunities to better plan for the shift in the Canadian economy.

I suspect that this plan will be emulated in the USA shortly after its success in Canada becomes obvious to the majority of us.


FORGET IRAN, IRAQ, UKRAINE
THIS IS WHERE WWIII STARTS...[/QUOTE]